PATEL BHANUBHAI KARSANDAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short The short facts of the case are that the lands owned by the petitioner were acquired by the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), which was published on 5.8.1998 for the purpose of Sabarmati Saraswati Link Canal. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 24.2.1999 and the award was passed on 30th April, 1999; whereby, the compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that the compensation was not granted for crops and the trees and when the petitioner resisted to handover the possession, respondent No.2 vide letter dated 11.10.1999 addressed to Sarpanch stated that the additional award for the market value for the standing crop and trees will be passed later on. It further appears that the concerned land owners, who were not satisfied with the compensation, had raised the dispute under Section 18 of the LAQ Act (herein after referred to as the Act ). Such disputes were referred to the Reference Court for adjudication. Not only that but in the dispute raised for compensation, there was no specific additional compensation prayed for the crops or the trees. Thereafter, Reference Court in the said References being LAR No.1230 of 2006 to 1251 of 2006 has fixed the compensation at Rs.57 per Sq.Mtr. plus the statutory benefit of interest and solatium. As stated by the learned Counsel for petitioner, the said judgment of the Reference Court was carried before this Court in First Appeal No.2275 of 2011 and allied appeals and this Court vide order dated 18.11.2011 enhanced the compensation at Rs.142/- per Sq.Mtr., plus the statutory benefit of solatium, interest, etc.

(2.) It appears that in the meantime, as per the petitioner, since compensation was not paid for the crop and the trees, they had to approach before this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No.1464 of 2006 and before this Court vide, it was declared by the learned AGP that the compensation for lemon trees and standing crop has not been given and that additional award will have to be passed. In view of the said declaration, this Court vide order dated 20.2.2006 directed the respondent to grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to pass additional award for the lemon trees and standing crop on the land in question at the time of acquisition within a period of 3 months from the date of the order. As per the petitioner, thereafter, the representation was made by the petitioner before the concerned officer and on 19.11.2007, the order has been passed by the Additional Collector (Irrigation) for awarding of total compensation of Rs.2,32,404/-.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that the said amount of compensation, as fixed, was not sufficient and to meet with the actual compensation of the crops and the trees, therefore, the petitioner raised the dispute under Section 18 for getting additional compensation of Rs.30,60,240/-. The said disputes were required to be referred to the Reference Court for adjudication, however, the petitioners have been conveyed by the Deputy Collector, that the reference of LAQ Case No.14/98 & 15/98 have already been forwarded to the District Court. But, subsequently, vide order dated 1.11.2011 at Annexure-C, the advocate of the petitioner has been communicated that the only provision for making reference is against the award passed under Section 11(1) of the Act and there is no provision for making any other reference in other case. Therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 9.11.2007 passed by the Additional Collector (Irrigation), he may approach before the appropriate Forum. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached to this Court with the prayer to issue appropriate writ to quash and set aside the decision dated 24.10.2011 and it is prayed by the petitioner to direct the respondent to make the reference under Section 18 of the Act before the District Court.